4 Wal Mart employees fired, what would YOU have done?

[elcaminoariba]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14319284

Rushing a guy with a gun is never a good idea. I had the same knee jerk reaction as everyone else in the poll, and was outraged at wal mart, but these employees almost got their fellow employee killed. Perps tend to keep fingers on triggers, so spinning a perp around who is pointing a gun at your buddy's back is BAD BAD BAD. I can't believe I agree with wal mart on this one. The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops. That being said, I wouldn't have fired them if I were in charge because I believe in rewarding success, and they were successful. I would however, have given them a long lecture on the realities of firearms and what can happen when you rush an armed individual who is pointing his gun directly at someone's back. They acted proactively like we see in the movies, and they got lucky that no one was hurt. I would have just let the guy go. The perp had the upper hand and these employees took one hell of a dangerous gamble (a gamble with their fellow employee's life) to attempt to retake the upper hand, which worked THIS time, but I can't blame wal mart for not wanting their employees to gamble with each other's lives to retake the upper hand from a guy with a weapon. The employee who had the gun to his back needs to sue for wrongful termination though. He was taken hostage, so by definition, he "disengaged" as per wal mart policy, and the perp had been disarmed by OTHERS. I don't know what wal mart expected this particular employee to do, give the guy his gun back?

 

[General Geoff]

We don't know the specifics of the situation, so I won't judge the employees one way or the other.


I'm reminded of a robbery that happened at my one best friend's place of employment. He has all the gritty details from everyone who was present (he was off at the time), and the one man who had a gun (three men total) was waving it around, and racking the slide repeatedly like in a movie, with no cartridges being ejected out. He concluded that, had he been there, he'd have laughed at the guy, drawn his own gun, and held him until police arrived, after ascertaining he had an empty firearm.

I'm not condoning said action since the other two in theory might also have had guns on their persons, but still. Sometimes criminals make stupid mistakes that scream "opportunity" to thwart their actions by their victims.

 

[elcaminoariba]

We don't know the specifics of the situation

Yes we do. Did you see the story I linked to? It was quite specific.

 

[Oyeboten]

Wallmart is worried about Accounting procedures and possible costs/overhead-profit margain.

If an employee is hurt or killed in the act of trying to manage or disarm a Gunman, or, if a customer is hurt or killed in an event incidental to an employee attempiting to engauge or disarm a miscreant Gunman, then, Walmart would possibly/probably get sued, or, otherwise incur costs.


The way I see it, is, if every instance of a miscreant and brandishing Gunman, were responded to by unarmed Citizens disarming him and holding him or her till the Police arrive, even if this meant an occasional injury or death to some of the Citizens...it would not be long untill virtually no miscreant gunmen, would bother trying to command or bully or rob anyone anymore.

 

[General Geoff]

Yes we do. Did you see the story I linked to? It was quite specific.

Yes, I read the whole thing. It did not describe what transpired between the five people in the room, from the time they escorted him in to the time they tackled him, other than that he produced a gun along with the laptop he stole, and jacked one of the employees up against a wall with the gun to his back. Not specific enough to pass judgement on their actions, IMO.

 

[Mp7]

i´m not considering reading this equal to knowing all about the specific situation.

If initiative is on your side AND you have confidence in your hand-to-hand skills,
then it might be wise to decide to attack.

if someone presses a gun agains a colleague and i grab him from behind ... gun goes off .. i´l be the one going "Oh sorry, mate. Thought i could wrestle the gun from him....."

So in theory i´m 80% towards do not risk your life and especially do not take that decision for others.

It´s all about Sun Tzu. If a final battle takes place .. make sure you choose the battlefield and have all advantages on your side. It´s not about winning battle. It´s about winning the war
In English: If you fell like 70% on top of situation ... that is nowhere near enough.

 

[451 Detonics]

I have to look at it this way. To me the chances of of it turning into a worse case scenario made it well worth the risk the employees took.

1. They were in the room with the gunman and the article didn't cover everything that was said in that small room. We don't know what threats might have been made or implied.

2. We do know Longton had an extensive record, warrants, and most likely did not want to go to jail.

3. Longton likely suspected the police had already been called and were on their way.

This could have turned into a hostage situation very easily with a gunman who did not want to go to jail and would have started shooting employees and customers when he saw LEOs and cars at the front doors. He could have decided suicide by cop was the best way to go and he would take as many people with him as he could. He could have decided to grab a child as a shield and try to fight his way out.

In my mind a few employees decided to prevent a desperate and armed man from leaving a secured location and enter an area where he would have access to customers and children. These 4 deserve a hero's accolades, not the despicable treatment Wal Mart handed them.

 

[WC145]

Rushing a guy with a gun is never a good idea. I had the same knee jerk reaction as everyone else in the poll, and was outraged at wal mart, but these employees almost got their fellow employee killed. Perps tend to keep fingers on triggers, so spinning a perp around who is pointing a gun at your buddy's back is BAD BAD BAD. I can't believe I agree with wal mart on this one. The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops.

Rushing the guy and stopping him, even with the risk involved, is better than letting an armed robber leave through the crowded store. Or would you rather they just stood there while he started shooting in the office to try and get out? These guys were hardly wannabe cops, they just took care of the situation as best they could at the moment and kept a scary situation from turning into a horrible one. I think they did a great job and I admire their attitudes, they're not people that are going to stand around and let themselves be shot over company policy.

I would have just let the guy go.

As you say, you're the kind of guy who would be willing to step aside and let the mope with the gun walk out, luckily these men weren't. Their actions PREVENTED injury and loss of life. Good on them.

I understand Wal-Mart's policy but I think it is misguided and only there to protect the company, not the people - employees or customers. I hope some other company sees this and hires these guys for their initiative and and ability to think on their feet.

Finally, how could you possibly know what "perps" tend to do with their trigger fingers?

 

[Sam1911]

Longton pleaded guilty Monday to two charges: robbery, a second-degree felony; and the purchase, transfer, possession or use of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a class A misdemeanor.

Interesting. Must be the STATE law that makes possession of a firearm by a felon a misdemeanor. The feds have a different take on that.

 

[x_wrench]

WAL-MART, when it was run by Sam, it WAS a good company. now it is run by bean counters with no hearts or brains. the ONLY thing that matters to the "management" there now is how many dollars they can make. it does not matter how they get it, or who they have to squash to do it. :banghead: making money is important, i realize that. but it SHOULD come with a certain amount of concern for people as well. both their employees, and their customers. it was a VERY risky move jumping the gunman, i am just glad that ALL the employees got to go home with no extra holes in their bodies!

 

[9mm+]

Look, Walmart's top priority is to protect themselves against liability, which trumps anything involving worker or customer safety. They are looking after the company's best interests, first and foremost. That is the reason why their policy exists. If blame were to be assigned for this, then you needn't look much further than your nearest lawyer.

When someone has a gun in your back, the situation is no longer about employee conduct but rather about protection of life. I thought that the other employees did the right thing and potentially saved MANY lives -- other employees and customers alike. There is no telling what the armed shoplifter would have done if he were let go in an obviously agitated and desperate state of mind.

 

[elcaminoariba]

1. They were in the room with the gunman and the article didn't cover everything that was said in that small room. We don't know what threats might have been made or implied.

We know that the guy just wanted out because he expressed that. It was obvious to all in the room that he didn't want to hurt them, that he just wanted out.

Finally, how could you possibly know what "perps" tend to do with their trigger fingers?

Wow, I am stunned you asked that. Do you really think that perps are so good at gun safety and tactical training that they keep their fingers out of the trigger guards? Most everyone here knows that it is a constant battle to train people to NOT put their fingers in the trigger guard every time they touch a gun. It is a pretty safe assumption that lowlife robbers are lazy in their gun handling etiquette, and it is the wise assumption that they will have their finger on the trigger while they're jamming their gun in someone's back. Most of these perps didn't receive training at front sight for pete's sake, they got their "training" from movies and video games, hence the reason it is a constant battle to get new shooters (and even semi experienced shooters) to not put the finger in the trigger guard when not on the firing line.

As a reminder, I would not have fired the three, but I partially agree with wal mart for doing so, and the fourth employee, the one who had the gun put in his back, has a great case for wrongful termination.

 

[danprkr]

I guess my biggest beef is that the store isn't backing their guys up in a situation not neatly covered by the book. In an enclosed space, just with the info we have, I'd have to go with the employees on this one. Now, in the open store I'd probably feel different, but in an enclosed space you have to decide the right course of action. If WW doesn't want their guys making these decisions they need to not put their people in a situation where these decisions come up. Oh wait, that's not actually possible. I guess WW needs to realize that the rule book is a guide line that CANNOT possibly cover all aspects of every situation. Once you're beyond that you have to let PEOPLE make judgments and then back them up.

In the meantime everyone has the right to defend themselves. You see this sort of thing in convenience store robberies periodically, and usually the clerk involved isn't unemployed very long so hopefully it'll be the same here.

 

[hso]

Walmart said their actions had violated company policy and put their fellow workers and shoppers at risk.

Pretty clear that rushing a guy with a gun stuck into the back of your coworker who's objective is to get out of the store without getting caught is both a bad idea and puts customers at risk. The BG gets caught shoplifitng, is confronted, sticks a gun in the back of the employee confronting him and repeats "Don't make me do this", and then the action heros jump in. Sounds like a cool scene in the movies, but in reality they should have helped the guy get out of the store quietly and safely so the cops could pick him up later.

 

[Sam1911]

I believe I see Walmart's point here.

This was not a case of an armed criminal herding his victims into a closet or bank vault for possible execution.

This was a person begging to be allowed to leave.

Rushing the guy and stopping him, even with the risk involved, is better than letting an armed robber leave through the crowded store.

There is no telling what the armed shoplifter would have done if he were let go in an obviously agitated and desperate state of mind.

I think it is pretty easy to understand what he would do if he were let go. FLEE. RUN. DEPART. NOW. As fast as possible.

He had displayed no tendency to go "active shooter" on the other shoppers. He wasn't there seeking a violent confrontation, or "suicide by cop." He was a shoplifter, corralled into a back room and trying to get away.

While perhaps the criminal mind is a mystery to some of us, a shoplifter is not an illogical, delusional, psychopathic, crazed madman. He's there for a purpose (theft) and he's got a fall back plan if that fails (run) and a fall back plan if confronted/detained (threaten with gun -- then RUN). This isn't a "blaze of glory" thing. It's a money thing. Killing someone (anyone...certainly customers going about their business) goes completely against his goals -- UNLESS he is forced to in order to effect his escape.

Their actions PREVENTED injury and loss of life. Good on them.

I can't see much reason to think that. It is extremely likely that he would have simply raced for the door if he'd been allowed to leave that back room. Racing out the door doesn't present much of a threat to the shoppers or other employees.

Obviously he DID threaten one employee with a gun, but in a stated and obvious attempt to leave -- WITHOUT shedding blood.

There was zero risk to human life UNTIL he was detained, and the risk to life came only in an attempt to remove himself from custody.

 

[Sam1911]

the store isn't backing their guys up in a situation not neatly covered by the book.

Better re-read the article. This is ... EXACTLY ... covered by the book.

"You're being terminated for a violation of AP09." AP09 is Walmart's policy on dealing with shoplifters. A copy obtained by KSL shows employees are allowed to use "reasonable force" to limit movements of struggling suspects. If a weapon comes out, however, associates must "disengage" and "withdraw," the policy states.

The did not disengage. They called his bluff and detained him.

I am ALL for armed or unarmed resistance to credible threats of violence. But it goes back to the old "means, motive, and opportunity" theme. He had the means to kill someone. He had the opportunity to kill someone.

He had NO motive to be killing anyone, and said so. All he wanted was to leave.

...

If we were discussing a one-on-one violent encounter on the street, and the scenario was presented that you're walking down an alley and someone coming out of the alley draws a gun and says, "I'm leaving this place -- don't try to stop me!" Every one of us would say that the correct course of action is to LET him GO. Why risk a gunfight? Why draw to a drawn gun? (In this case, why attack with bare hands to his drawn gun?) He's told you what he wants. It costs you nothing to give it to him. Be a good witness. Don't unnecessarily risk your own hide for no purpose.

Same deal here.

 

[2WheelsGood]

The perp just wanted to leave and these guys and gal turned themselves into wannabe cops.

Well, I might have agreed if these were average Walmart shelf-stockers, but they were part of the loss-prevention team. I'm not necessarily defending them, but they were hired to do what they did, more or less.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Pretty clear that rushing a guy with a gun stuck into the back of your coworker who's objective is to get out of the store without getting caught is both a bad idea and puts customers at risk. The BG gets caught shoplifting, is confronted, sticks a gun in the back of the employee confronting him and repeats "Don't make me do this", and then the action heros jump in. Sounds like a cool scene in the movies, but in reality they should have helped the guy get out of the store quietly and safely so the cops could pick him up later.

I agree, you're risking your life when they guy clearly just wants to leave. I've worked with walmart before over the course of my IT career and let me tell you, risking my life over a shoplifter isn't high on my priority list.

Without being there, we don't know the specifics, so I won't be too quick to judge. Who was standing where, where was the muzzle pointed when the workers rushed the shoplifter? There's a million factors we can't know.

Even if the employees acted inappropriately, I think walmart was a little too harsh in terminating a 12 year career. Maybe a reprimand would be in order, but not termination.

 

[2WheelsGood]

He had NO motive to be killing anyone, and said so.

If that's true, he should have stuck to unarmed robbery, or he should have at least used an unloaded gun. Using a loaded gun while robbing someone does not suggest someone without a motive to kill.

 

[Sam1911]

Using a loaded gun while robbing someone does not suggest someone without a motive to kill.

Then you are unclear on the definition of "motive." I.e.: "the reason for a certain course of action, whether conscious or unconscious."

And on the definition of "robbery," -- "The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation." He didn't commit robbery, just theft.

If you go to shoplift, your MOTIVE is acquisition of an item you want or can sell. If you bring a gun, your MOTIVE hasn't changed, only the possibilities for how much force you're willing to apply to achieve your motive -- or to achieve your secondary motive of fleeing.

Seeing as the man entered the store, took and secreted items on his person, and attempted to leave, his MOTIVE is abundantly clear. He was not there to kill anyone or harm anyone.

Further, he's not even using his gun to effect his theft. In other words, this isn't "armed robbery" so much as a "felon in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime." In fact, he gave up the goods without a fight. He was not willing to use that weapon to forcibly take merchandise. He only brandished his gun to try and effect his ESCAPE, completely secondary to his attempt to take goods.

All that to say, there is no reasonable evidence to support the argument that ANYONE was going to die there that day, whether the thief carried out his plan and left with the merchandise or whether he was stopped in his plans but then was allowed to leave after producing a weapon.

The greatest risk of injury or death occurred because the employees physically resisted his attempt to LEAVE.

 

[2WheelsGood]

He only brandished his gun to try and effect his ESCAPE, completely secondary to his attempt to take goods.

Secondary or not, you just proved he DID have a motive to kill; to avoid capture. He even said as much. He said "I don't WANT to do this", which implies that he WILL if he has to. Simply, his motive (read your definition) to kill was to escape. Which, by the way, is the same motive any thief has who brings a loaded gun to a robbery. It may not be pre-meditated, but it is still motive (again, according to your own definition).

 

[Sam1911]

Point taken. When pushed into a corner, he developed a motive to kill. Absent the actions of the employees, he had none. Which, I think, is Walmart's quite valid take on the matter.

 

[TexasBill]

It galls me to say it, but Wally World did the right thing and did it according to the book. It's a company policy and it has to be enforced across the board to protect the company from being sued for wrongful termination. Even though we see an exceptional situation here, they can't make an exception. Otherwise, everything is an exception.

Best Buy has a similar policy and has terminated employees, including Loss Prevention employees, for physically engaging a shoplifter or robber. One reason, of course, is avoiding liability. The second reason really is employee and customer safety. If a shoplifter or thief becomes violent, left him go and call the police. Escalating the engagement, even if you are armed, increases the chance of shots being fired and somebody being wounded or killed. I think you'll find most retailers have similar policies and many prohibit their employees from carrying weapons on the job precisely to avoid such situations. If an armed presence is required, the store will contract with a private security company or hire off-duty LEOs to handle it.

Merchandise and money can be replaced; lives can't.

Unfortunately, in those rare situations where a criminal does intend to "leave no witnesses," these company policies contribute to the deaths of innocent people who have no chance to defend themselves and those cases are the corporate lawyer's nightmare.

 

[DAP90]

I agree, you're risking your life when they guy clearly just wants to leave. I've worked with walmart before over the course of my IT career and let me tell you, risking my life over a shoplifter isn't high on my priority list.

Without being there, we don't know the specifics, so I won't be too quick to judge. Who was standing where, where was the muzzle pointed when the workers rushed the shoplifter? There's a million factors we can't know.

Even if the employees acted inappropriately, I think walmart was a little too harsh in terminating a 12 year career. Maybe a reprimand would be in order, but not termination.

More accurately, they risked the life of the hostage. Sure, their own lives were in danger but if that guy was willing to shoot there’s no way the hostage wasn’t getting shot.

I’ve worked in retail in years past. I definitely would not have wanted my coworkers to risk my life if I had been the hostage in that situation.

 

[Panzercat]

I had some long rant about this and while I agree with the walmart employees, I can see why they have the policy...

But seriously, why are you firing the guy with the gun in his back? Apparently, if you work at Walmart, company policy states you do not have a right to your own personal survival.

Dear fired employees, thank you for handling this situation and not exposing my family to an unstable hostage taking gunman while we were shopping at walmart.